In 2005, when Gallup asked Americans, "Do you think schools would be safer places or more dangerous places if school officials were armed with guns?" 73% said it would make them more dangerous.

This year, a poll asked "Should school personnel with concealed handgun permits be allowed to carry guns on school campuses?" and 65% said Yes. Despite intense opposition to the idea from liberal newspapers and politicians, seven states, according to this site, have now "proposed legislation that would allow teachers to carry guns to school."

This is a huge change! Aurora and Newtown and the other recent mass killings have understandably scared us.

Americans are now so frightened that they are changing how they evaluate the relative pros and cons of having guns in our schools. Despite knowing that guns are dangerous, that they can end up accidentally (like this tragic case two weeks ago) killing a loved one, more Americans than before are willing to accept that risk in order to have some protection against the next Adam Lanza.

We've been made fearful of young men (so far it's just been men) who are in any way a little bit strange, be it autistic or geeky or into "goth" dress etc. The neighbor's son, the classmate in graduate school, the kid who's into video games, almost anybody really, could be the next mass killer; this is the atmosphere that now prevails.

Is it a coincidence that this mental atmosphere makes us more easily dominated by our ruling elite? When we are afraid of one another and feel we don't know who may suddenly turn on us violently, then we are hardly in a mental frame of mind conducive to supporting and relying on each other in resistance to the ruling class of billionaires and politicians. On the contrary it is nobodies, who might be the next Adam Lanza, against whom we are preoccupied to defend ourselves.

While we debate whether to arm teachers to defend our children against wacko but armed nobodies, the people with wealth and power are proceeding to impoverish us further by gutting Social Security and cutting government services and taxing us to pay billionaire bankers who are "too big to fail." But instead of our attention being focused on this monstrous attack on us by the ruling class, it is focused on a very different monstrous attack on us carried out by armed deranged nobodies. How convenient for the ruling class!

Instead of having a huge public debate about whether or not the debt owed to the billionaires by the government is a debt that ordinary people rightfully owe (a debate in which the "No we don't owe them anything; they in fact owe us!" side has a very strong case) that much-needed debate is replaced with a debate about whether to let teachers carry weapons to school. The video on this site shows just such a debate.

I believe that the ruling class wants to disarm Americans before it becomes clear to hundreds of millions of us that we need a revolution. But this is not about to happen for quite a while. In the meantime the ruling class knows that lots of Americans have and will hold onto their guns. It needs these gun owners to be preoccupied with Adam Lanzas and not Goldman Sachs. The rulers probably don't give a damn whether teachers who own guns carry them to school or not. What they care about is using the debate over the question to divert attention from how they are robbing the working class blind. The plutocracy has told its obedient newspaper editors and politicians and pundits to mercilessly attack and ridicule the idea of arming teachers or school cops for one reason only: to provoke the other side into a fierce headline-grabbing attention-distracting debate.

The Adam Lanzas are so useful to the ruling class that one cannot help but suspect that CIA type people had a hand in making these Adam Lanzas happen. It's not as if the CIA hasn't done such a thing in the past. We know they have done it. They ran Operation Gladio, which did exactly such things in Europe. And it's not as if the CIA hasn't spent decades trying to figure out how to use mind control to get people to do things they wouldn't ordinarily do. The CIA spent 6% of its budget for years doing exactly that with its MKULTRA program.

The mass killings are very real and very frightening and cannot be prudently ignored. The question is how best to respond to them. As when a serious disease strikes, the first response needs to be to diagnose the cause. The appropriate solution depends entirely on what the cause is. If the cause of these mass killings is that our society is riddled with mass killers who could be almost anybody, and there are so many of them that the probability one will attack at any given place is worrisomely high, then it would make sense to arm lots and lots of people in order to have a good chance that a "good guy with a gun" will be nearby to stop the "bad guy with a gun" even though there may be accidental injuries or deaths due to these omnipresent guns. As a society we make tradeoffs like this all the time: people die in car accidents but we keep on driving.

But if these killings are due to some kind of CIA social control scheme like the CIA's European Operation Gladio, then the appropriate solution is to expose this crime and remove the criminals from power. We need to diagnose the problem, with our eyes wide open.